Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Ted Cruz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CharlesShirley (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 9 January 2021 (→Lead: Not in the lead.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What exactly is the issue with Heidi Cruz, his spouse, being in the last sentence of the lead?

Someone with common sense, please point me in the direction of where it is now wrong to put in the lede that a married man is married and a father (a biographical fact which is par for the course of almost all BLP articles when the other person has their own article and notability) without giving the inference that one measly sentence makes the entire article about said spouse—a relationship that attracts a significant amount of political attention to him because of it’s ties to a bank. Should Hillary Clinton be removed from Bill Clinton because it makes his article seem to be about her? Why do Bob Menendez and Marco Rubio belong there but his own family doesn’t.... Does WP:LEAD not say that these paragraphs are to sum out the article’s important points, making it categorically irrelevant if it is a redundancy? I’ll wait for CharlesShirley to explain since he knows everything. Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people with biographies have a spouse and children, not all, of course, but the vast majority do. It is not something that makes Cruz unique or what he is know for. The lede section should focus on what makes the person unique or well-know for. If you review the biographies of people that have Wikipedia articles then you will see that very few, almost none have the fact that they have a spouse and children listed in the lede section. This addition goes against MOS and it goes against how the vast majority of biography articles are written. You have not provided any reason why there should be an exception for Heidi Cruz. Comparing Ms. Cruz and Hillary Clinton is like comparing apples to oranges. Ms. Clinton has many, many accomplishments that make her eligible for an article of her own, and of course there is. Heidi Cruz barely got an article. You can see that discussion here: Debate to delete HC, Result: Keep. (By the way, I think the discussion to delete her article was hogwash. I never saw the reason to delete her article.) There was many, many people that objected to her article and it was almost deleted after being made. This did not happen to Clinton. Clinton was First Lady, U.S. Senator from NY, and Democratic Presidential candidate twice. Ms. Cruz does not have these accomplishments. The body of the Ted Cruz article mentions her in the Personal life section and her children, as is the practice on most biographies. If the mention of Cruz's fellow Cuban colleagues in the Senate is your real concern, then maybe that sentence should be removed from the lede section. But adding the name of a spouse and the number of children, when we do not do that for other biographies is not acceptable. It does not follow the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and it is not notable enough and it does not follow standard Wikipedia practice--especially since having a spouse and children is not a unique aspect of anyone's life and it is not the reason Ted Cruz is well-known in the first place. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MoS guidelines for opening paragraphs should generally be followed, and the opening paragraph of a biographical article should establish notability, neutrally describe the person, and provide context.'' The opening paragraph should usually state:
    1. Name(s) and title(s), if any (see also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)). Handling of the subject's name is covered below in § First mention.
    2. Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them).
    3. Context (location or nationality);
    4. The noteworthy position(s) the person held, activities they took part in, or roles they played;
    5. Why the person is notable.''
Wherever possible, avoid defining a notable person, particularly in the title or first sentence, in terms of their relationships. Generally speaking, notability is not inherited, which means the fact that a person is the spouse of another notable person does not make that person notable. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph.[a] -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead (per MOS:LEAD, don't tease the reader), b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic).

Whataboutism or what about Gates, Clooney, Beckham, and Clinton

The editor who is demanding that Ted Cruz's wife and children be mentioned in the opening paragraph has a serious case of Whataboutism. Even though, there is really zero reasons to respond to this illogical argument (one might say, fantastical), I will attempt to fight the illogical with logic. Wish me Good Luck! So the editor–—who is obsessed with putting Heidi Cruz and Heidi's and Ted's children in the opening section–—provided a lecture with zero facts about how, in that editor's mind, Wikipedia editors put spouses and children in the opening section all the time and the names provided for this false claim were: (1) Bill Gates, (2) George Clooney, (3) David Beckham, and (4) Bill Clinton.

Now, this is a matter of comparing apples to oranges, but let's go down this rathole anyway, shall we?:

(1) Gates. In Gates article opening section, Melinda Gates is not mentioned once. However, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is mentioned, but not Melinda Gates personally. But if it is so important to have the spouse and the children mentioned in the opening section then why isn't the probably the wealthiest woman in the world not mentioned in the opening section or the Gates children? Ms. Gates has her own article. The Gates's have three children, but you have to dig long and hard to find that in Wikipedia. It is mentioned in Melinda Gates article.
(2) Clooney. In the Clooney article opening section, Amal Clooney is mentioned in the last sentence. The children of the Clooney power couple are not mentioned at all in the opening section. Nor should they be.
(3) Beckham. In Becks article opening section, Victoria Beckham is not mentioned, nor are their children (nor should they be). The article did mention Posh Spice in the Personal life section since that is where it belongs.
(4) Clinton. In the Clinton article opening section, Hillary Clinton is mentioned as Bill's spouse, but as we discussed before she deserves to be there based upon her life as First Lady, U.S. Senator from NY, Democratic Prez candidate twice, and Secretary of State and because of her life long working relationship with her spouse. The one spawn of their union, Chelsea Clinton, was not mentioned in the opening section at all. As it should be.

So this covers all of the whataboutism that a certain editor threw out willy-nilly. This review makes it clear that Heidi Cruz should be mentioned in the Personal life section and not in the opening section, to be consistent with Wikipedia MOS and standard practice, as these examples prove. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlesShirley: See this is how I’m sure you don’t know what in the hell you’re talking about. You linked to Pirates of Silicon Valley, a tv movie.... Yet Bill Gates’s actual article mentions on multiple occasions in the lead that he and his wife Melinda Gates do tons of charity work together. You linked to a random George Clooney film instead of just going to his article, called George Clooney, where the last sentence of the lead is that he is married to human rights lawyer Amal Clooney. You linked to Bend It Like Beckham, which is a movie about teenage girls... Yet in his own article which wasn’t hard to find by typing his actual name in the search bar, the lead section says clear as day He has been married to Victoria Beckham since 1999 and they have four children. Have you lost the plot? Maybe you just went out of your way for a straw man because the evidence was irrefutable and you had to scramble to make something up by piping. With that said I have no choice but to reinstate and if it goes to the noticeboard, oh well, I have all year. I raise your whataboutism for I-don’t-like-it-ism. I was simply giving random examples of a common standard for popular Biographies of Living Persons when the partner is blue-linked. I’ll put it past you as you apparently only have a very narrow editorial interest and have only have been here what, a year? yet, strangely, want to behave as if you have rollback rights. Donald Trump’s article’s lead section mentions none of his wives or children and one of them is the current First Lady of the United States, one of them is currently a Senior Advisor to the President. It removes a large chunk of his life and public image, especially as president. Hillary Rodham was only used as an example of a political spouse, irrespective of feminism and political equality. I could’ve pulled lower hanging fruit but obviously my point got across. One deletion discussion had nothing to do with the other—oh wait, isn’t that whataboutism?! As an article, Hillary Clinton was created 19 years ago. It’s one of the oldest biographical articles on here. In what version of reality does ONE sentence of ~100 characters, not even a tweet of length, make an entire article about someone else or make it too long? You are the only person who thinks this drivel. Who died and made you the bard? What makes you think you decide what is “acceptable” when you don’t even know what’s what? You don’t even know what the de facto is. So Heidi Cruz doesn’t so-called contribute enough to notability yet was making headline after headline for fundraising her husband’s presidential campaign. How’s that work? On International Women’s Day, she was especially chosen for the Did You Know feature for the fact that she outearns her husband several times over. That isn’t notable? Nothing I wrote was out of line. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Ha. You are hilarious and delusional. I had a great time linking to both the main article for each of your examples that proved my point AND movies about them. You just keep attacking me about lack of authority. I don't have any authority. I don't claim to have any authority. That's why I pointed to the Wikipedia rules, tons of them. Your edit does not follow the basic principal of Wikipedia that the opening section is not about spouse and children and each of the examples you gave proves it, on top of the Wikipedia rules, of course. The length of my response (and the length of your response) proves nothing. Also, all of your strange comments saying things about me, when you don't know me, don't prove anything. (You talk about those made up things about me because you have no valid argument in relation to Wikipedia's rules.) The opening paragraph is not about Heidi Cruz or their children. It is as simple as that. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world do movies about these people and or movies they acted in have anything to do with the subject of family? Let alone acting as if a movie is their name. The delusional one here is someone who did those mental sommersaults only to fall flat. You have once again lost grasp on logic and reality. Bordering on pure stupidity. What you’re saying is not making any damn sense. And it doesn’t change the fact that their lead sections said exactly what I said they said (and still do), which I put in verbatim quote. Try to use common sense. One doesn’t have to go to Just Friends to see that Ryan Reynolds is married to Blake Lively with whom he has three daughters. in his own article. No one does that! Loud and wrong, you are. On top of the fact that one standard sentence does not, by any stretch of the English language, completely reorient an article about someone else when the entire rest of the article says otherwise. It’s simply the fact that if a family member is notable, they are allowed to be in the lead. It’s not ABOUT those people. Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Ha. You get upset about absolutely nothing. The rules of Wikipedia do not support your addition. I find it funny how upset you get. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesShirley: Once again, the rules say nothing about specifically excluding a notable family member with an article, being as it's literally in countless biographies of living persons all over this website. Your argument against me is that it should be excluded because his marriage is not what makes him notable, when I never said it did. There's no inherited notability going on here as Heidi Cruz is already independently notable as a businessperson. It simply follows the standard of completing (or giving context to) the lead. Trillfendi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CharlesShirley said in an edit summary that Trillfendi has "not gathered the appropriate consensus to make this edit". I agree with that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you chose your edit summary to be my headline, what else is new. Consensus didn’t need to be gathered for something uncontroversial (unlike the hidden note in the lead) that there was never consensus against. Trillfendi (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi:As Ronald Reagan said to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again!". You are misstating (or ignoring) Wikipedia rules. Of course, you must get consensus to add information with which others disagree. And your addition goes against Wikipedia rules because Ted Cruz's spouse and children are not what made him well-known. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesShirley: And you're misstating me. The same way you resorted to random, irrelevant-to-the-topic movies. Yet when I provided numerous examples to the contrary you're the one saying I'm using whataboutism (for a fact that exists in spite of your cognitive dissonance) then resorting to calling me "upset". You still never provided a policy-backed rule excluding something so common and pervasive throughout the encyclopedia. Absolutely nothing [[here or here remotely says anything about the sort. Just because it's your interpretation, doesn't make it an edict. If you went and did that on other biographies of living persons, let alone those with a more positive reputation, you'd be swiftly reverted. Trillfendi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again! Talking about other biographies. You got nothing. The more you talk the clearer that gets. And your jumping up and down and pounding your feet makes you argument even less persuasive, if possible. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesShirley: I’m talking about BLP itself, clearly. It’s sad that something as routine as just getting around to responding to a disagreement (3 weeks later, no less) is depicted in your mind as some sexist, woman-scorned tirade, instead of what is supposed to be an all but civilized conversation. Maybe you get a cheap thrill out of hallucinating the idea of me jumping up and down and pounding [my] feet—sorry to disappoint, but I’m anticlimatically sitting here as one does to type. Not that I have to difnify that absurd idea anyway. On top of it being quite ironic that someone who apparently is banned from editing on certain topics wants to accuse me of breaking the rules™. Thankfully, I have no issue with turning to higher methods of content dispute resoution. Trillfendi (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Ha. You are hilarious. You claim to be retired, but yet you go on raging rants! There is nothing to talk about. Ms. Cruz should not be mentioned in the opening section. It doesn't follow the Wikipedia rules. It is not necessary. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesShirley: I’ve neither claimed to be "retired" (I literally created a page yesterday, how active is that), raged, nor ranted. Seems to be you doing that instead. Since you believe that, go ahead and join the Request for Comment and let others speak their mind on it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Ted Cruz lead paragraph

Should the lead section conclude with one sentence about his family (being that two of his family members meet the Wikipedia criteria of notability itself by having articles), just like most large biographies of living persons typically do, in a neutral manner and without giving an inference of perceived "inherited notability" and / or granting notability to the subject? Or is it really against a policy and does the one sentence make the article about them? I’m here to get consensus as I allegedly didn’t do that by including something I assumed to be a non-issue in its ubiquity. And that I’ve seen nothing in the Manual of Style explicitly against it. Trillfendi (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-- Why exactly is this DUE for the lead? Has his wife been a major contributor to his notability? If not, then shouldn't this just remain in the Personal Life section? That kinda seems like the whole point of having a Personal Life section. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need to clarify "false claims" of fraud and an attempt to overturn the 2020 election

Currently, the article contains flimsy text that muddies the waters. The text must state that Biden won the 2020 election, the claims of fraud in the election are "false", Cruz is seeking to overturn the results of the election, and the he leads to effort to refuse certification of the Electoral College vote. In other words, the text that was reverted here[1] should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead figure in far-right conspiracy theory, yet absent from article

Given that Cruz is actively propagating the far-right 'Stop the steal' conspiracy theory, the absence of this information from the article is surprising. A prominent US senator adopting overt fascist rhetoric in a coup attempt to try to overturn the US elections is highly notable and should be mentioned both in the lead and (prominently) in the article. Presenting Cruz as "just a normal politician" is not consistent with WP:NPOV. Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ted Cruz Hispanic?

His mother is white American (Irish/Italian), his father is from the Canary Islands, though he was born in Cuba. That doesn't appear to be "Hispanic" by any definition of the word. Thalia42 (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Irrefutably. Trillfendi (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead should cover Cruz's shift from a Trump critic to staunch Trump ally, culminating in Cruz's anti-democratic maneuver to overturn the 2020 election over Trump's false and baseless claims of fraud. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This shift has been prominently discussed in RS for at least two years now. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article doesn't contain a lot of information on his relationship with Trump. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is the most important part of Cruz' political role and legacy, and what he is known for globally. --Tataral (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a classic case of recentism. Also, the sentence that was added was clearly not neutral in nature--just take a look of the comments of editor above who started this topic. The comments are written with an agenda in mind. Also, the Trump info is a small, fraction of Cruz's life and career. It does not merit being in the opening lead. -- CharlesShirley (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Cruz&oldid=999205085"